Abstract

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id1971838. ; Size: 2021K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

Most challenges to state enforced conformity with gender norms are almost solely status-based equality claims. Given that a common term deployed by members of the trans community and in anti-discrimination laws is "gender identity and expression," situating such challenges in expression may, at first glance, appear to be little more than linguistic legerdemain. An understanding of gender as expressive, however, helps capture an often unarticulated, yet central aspect, of the harm enforced conformity inflicts on trans persons -- compelled expression of the state's gender message over their profound objection. Consider governmental insistence that a trans student or employee present herself, through dress and grooming, in accordance with her sex assigned at birth. The state is enforcing a selective message, which this author refers to as "the ideology of the binary." Unsurprisingly, it reflects the prevailing view: there are two (and only two) distinct sexes with congruent gender identities, fixed by nature and immutably different. The focus of this Article is on compelled expression over an individual's objection, which is of particular concern given the state's role as enforcer. Not only does the state have sole authority to legally categorize people by sex, but it also uses those categories as the basis for distributing rights and goods, such as marriage and its associated benefits, over which it maintains a monopoly of power. The state likewise controls access to the countless protections that flow from the wide-ranging use of government identification in our private interactions, such as the ability to get a job, use a credit card, or interact with the public and government authorities without fear of harassment, discrimination, or violence. Case law, furthermore, reveals that state enforcement of gender norms over one's objection is inextricably intertwined with additional messages concerning the subordination of gender outgroups. This messaging has as its foci the dehumanization of trans people, the insistence on traditional gender roles for women, and the disapprobation of homosexuality. The Author focuses on expression because it offers the opportunity of more. In contrast to the most common jurisprudential vehicle -- equality -- expression may better reflect the complex and flourishing diversity of experiences that make up gender. In particular, while equality claims tend to rely almost solely on a medical model of gender identity, expression claims are also suited to non-medicalized claims by trans persons, especially those for whom dissent from traditional norms is integral to their gender identity.